MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388792763 · doi:10.1016/j.euo.2023.10.029

Diagnostic Accuracy of Liquid Biomarkers for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Detection: A Systematic Review and Diagnostic Meta-analysis of Multiple Thresholds

2023· review· en· W4388792763 on OpenAlexaff
Tatsushi Kawada, Sung Ryul Shim, Fahad Quhal, Paweł Rajwa, Benjamin Pradère, Takafumi Yanagisawa, Kensuke Bekku, Ekaterina Laukhtina, Markus von Deimling, Jeremy Yuen‐Chun Teoh, Pierre I. Karakiewicz, Motoo Araki, Shahrokh F. Shariat

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Urology Oncology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisProstate cancerProstateDiagnostic accuracyCancer detectionClinical PracticeOncologyMedical physicsCancerRadiologyPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Many liquid biomarkers have entered clinical practice with the praise to improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), helping avoid unnecessary prostate biopsies. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of multianalyte biomarkers for csPCa detection using multiple thresholds. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A comprehensive literature search was done through PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus in March 2023 for prospective and retrospective studies reporting the diagnostic performance of liquid biomarkers for detecting csPCa. The outcomes of interest were the diagnostic performance of liquid biomarkers for csPCa detection and identification of optimal thresholds for each biomarker. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall, 49 studies were eligible for this meta-analysis. Using each representative threshold based on the Youden Index, the pooled sensitivity and specificity for detecting csPCa were 0.85 and 0.37 for prostate cancer gene 3 (PCA3), 0.85 and 0.52 for prostate health index (PHI), 0.87 and 0.58 for four kallikrein (4K), 0.82 and 0.56 for SelectMDx, 0.85 and 0.54 for ExoDx, and 0.82 and 0.59 for mi prostate score (MPS), respectively. The diagnostic odds ratio was highest for 4K (8.84), followed by MPS (7.0) and PHI (6.28). According to the meta-analysis incorporating multiple thresholds, the corresponding sensitivity was 0.77 for 4K, 0.69 for PHI, and 0.63 for PCA3; specificity was 0.72 for PHI, 0.70 for 4K, and 0.69 for PCA3. CONCLUSIONS: Regarding the detection of csPCa, 4K had the highest diagnostic performance among the commercial liquid biomarkers. Based on the optimal thresholds calculated by the present meta-analysis, 4K had the highest sensitivity and PHI had the highest specificity for detecting csPCa. Nevertheless, clinical decision-making requires combination strategies between liquid and imaging biomarkers. PATIENT SUMMARY: Novel biomarkers for prostate cancer detection were useful for more accurate diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer to avoid unnecessary biopsies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.047
Bibliometrics0.0090.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.146
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Urology OncologySame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207